Adobe Systems has launched a test version of Mac software that is seen as a rival to a professional photo program that Apple Computer launched last year.
Adobe on Monday offered up a public beta of Adobe Lightroom, a program to help avid shutterbugs manage the work of processing, selecting and editing their RAW-format images. Apple introduced a similar concept with its $499 Aperture software that shipped late last year.
Adobe noted, however, that it has been working on Lightroom for some time, although the final version is not expected until "late 2006."
"We first showed an early version of Lightroom at the Adobe Ideas Conference in April 2005 to demonstrate a new streamlined digital photography experience, from capture to print," Adobe President Shantanu Narayen said in a statement. "Even in beta form, photographers will find world-class technology that complements Photoshop."
While the initial test version is Mac only, Adobe said it expects to eventually offer both Windows and Macintosh versions of Lightroom.
Though the test version should be useful already, the program does not yet have all its features, said Kevin Connor, a senior director of product management at Adobe.
"Certainly, you can do productive work, but there are many things that we plan to add," he said. High up on the list is the notion of "stacking" together related photos--a feature that is in Aperture as well as Photoshop Elements, but not yet part of Lightroom.
Sink your teeth into all the news from this week's Macworld Expo.
Among the key features already in the product, Connor said, is a "lights out" tool that lets users hide the program's editing tools and look only at the photos in question. There is also an option for photographers to add their own branding to the software so that they can better use the program to show off their work to clients.
Adobe is recommending that those who want to try out Lightroom have a system with at least a 1GHz PowerPC G4 processor, 768MB of memory and a 1,024-by-768 pixel screen. It won't run on systems with less than 512MB of memory.
Though beefy, those requirements are less than those mandated by Aperture. For desktops, Apple's software requires a G5-based iMac or Power Mac with a 1.8GHz processor. It also works on a 15-inch or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25GHz chip or faster. The software calls for at least 1GB of memory and 5GB of disk space just for the program and its related files. Apple's recommended system for Aperture is even heftier, with the company pushing a dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 and 2GB of memory.
Apple representatives were not immediately available to comment on Adobe's move.
Connor said Adobe wanted Lightroom to run on a wide variety of devices, including the typical notebooks that photographers have while on assignment. "You shouldn't have to reconfigure your hardware setup to bring in a new piece of software," he said.
The company said final system requirements and pricing have yet to be determined.
Connor did say he expects the price to be somewhere between its $649 Photoshop and its $99 Photoshop Elements, though clearly that leaves quite a bit of pricing room.
I suspect this is much easier to develope for the macintosh since the technology used (also in Aperature) is integrated into the core of the operating system.
Apple probably released Aperature just to get Adobe to switch to it's developement software.
If Microsoft had done such a thing (as creating a program to just get the competition to switch to Windows) you'de be yelling "Unfair!"..."Evil monopoly!"...But when Mac does it it's a-o-k.
Earl. Get off your anti-Adobe meme. It's boring. Lightroom looks like an interesting app. And it you're talking about bloatware......Aperture requires an uber-Mac to make it work. I look forward to trying both Aperture and Lightroom and I don't discount either due to gross stupid generalizations about the companies that produce them.
First of all, it's beta software. So cut them some slack. Second of all, it's got some nice features I'd like to see in Aperture (which I use.) I think this is good that Adobe has brought Lightroom out. Keep Apple on their toes. Faster software improvements. Let's not have another FinalCut Pro/Premier fiasco. Let's have two apps driving each other to greater heights!
Second of all, it's being written completely in Cocoa. So it's going to be lean and fast. Right now it's much faster than Aperture.
I'm going to be watching this one closely. What I see lacking in features, what I miss from Bridge in Aperture, is already there in Lightroom! Bridge made me much more productive in dealing with my 16.7 megapixel images. Even on slower G4s. On my dual 2GHz G5 it's fast! If Lightroom gives me that functionality, I may have to switch to Lightroom as my main application to use with Photoshop.
We shall see. Blind loyalty (or derision) does no one any good. Apple makes great stuff, but so does Adobe. Anyone who says otherwise is just being contrary, and has no interest in the facts.
Adobe sucks, Microsoft sucks, Linux is too complicated (and hence sucks)! What's up with Mac fan boys? Do you want to buy Hardware, Operating System and Applications from ONE company? If that's the case that company must be an 'evil empire' IMHO.
Adobe makes fine software, sophisticated one at that. Apple applications tend to be basic/rudimentary; look at iCal and Mail client.
Apple's software is rudimentary? Look at Microsoft. Outlook EXPRESS hasn't been updated in years and Windows doesn't even come with an iCal compatible application. Mac's Mail and iCal apps are completely usable and I haven't need to use anything but them.
>Pdude said: > >Apple applications tend to be basic/rudimentary; >look at iCal and Mail client
What are you smoking? Have you not heard of Final Cut Pro? Logic Pro? Motion? Next time I'd advise you check your facts before spouting off. It's annoying, and annoying is now illegal:
What in the world do you do for a living that allows you use pagemaker but no other Adobe product? Man, oh man you need to get off your high horse and start using InDesign and the rest of CS2. Maybe then you won't be so uptight because your work life will much easier. And from my point of view, it's better that Adobe is creating this rather than Microsoft.
Every software company needs competition -- even Apple.
Pagemaker does the job I want simply, cleanly, and with no extraneous functions getting in the way. That's a concept lost to Adobe in general, and to In-Design in particular. You don't need a howitzer to go mouse hunting, unless you're a lousy shot.
And Adobe made it quite clear in emails to me that the Adobe products were designed for the serious professional, not for the casual use by a consumer. So, if I wasn't ready to run the Adobe learning curve, I should use something else. That's about the only right thing Adobe has come up with.
Why all the hate for adobe? I am very exited about this Program. I feel that it will have a much bigger market share than Aperature, even in the mac market. Aperature is way overpriced for what it does, and it requires ungodly computer power. If you have a $3000 powerbook that you just purchased, you can't even run it. The lightroom beta seems to run ok on a powerbook. I haven't used aperature, but from the reviews I've read the raw coverter is garbage in comparison to adobe camera raw. Another great thing about Lightroom is it will run on windows.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
Whether Apple will release a new iPad next month doesn't seem to be the question as much as what day it will happen. A new rumor has it down to the day.
Tommy Jordan, the man who shot his daughter's laptop for YouTube, gets a visit from police and child protection services. Oh, and Good Morning America.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
As UC Berkeley students, the co-founders of "Back to the Roots" discovered they could grow mushrooms using recycled coffee grounds. Now their mushroom kit sells at grocery stores across the country.
Apple probably released Aperature just to get Adobe to switch to it's developement software.
And I am a designer too! I work with Apple / Adobe products all
day... just seems like a wrong name here ...
Windows version YET.
obese Adobe tradition, and who needs it???
Apeture is already everything Lightroom and Photoshop wished
they were, implemented correctly with a truly useful user
interface.
Adobe should stick its head back in the sand.
And as soon as I can find an OS X replacement for Aldus's
Pagemaker, the last trace of Adobe's sloppy fingers will be gone
from my computers.
looks like an interesting app. And it you're talking about
bloatware......Aperture requires an uber-Mac to make it work. I
look forward to trying both Aperture and Lightroom and I don't
discount either due to gross stupid generalizations about the
companies that produce them.
Are you 10 years old?
all, it's got some nice features I'd like to see in Aperture (which I
use.) I think this is good that Adobe has brought Lightroom out.
Keep Apple on their toes. Faster software improvements. Let's
not have another FinalCut Pro/Premier fiasco. Let's have two
apps driving each other to greater heights!
Second of all, it's being written completely in Cocoa. So it's
going to be lean and fast. Right now it's much faster than
Aperture.
I'm going to be watching this one closely. What I see lacking in
features, what I miss from Bridge in Aperture, is already there in
Lightroom! Bridge made me much more productive in dealing
with my 16.7 megapixel images. Even on slower G4s. On my
dual 2GHz G5 it's fast! If Lightroom gives me that functionality, I
may have to switch to Lightroom as my main application to use
with Photoshop.
We shall see. Blind loyalty (or derision) does no one any good.
Apple makes great stuff, but so does Adobe. Anyone who says
otherwise is just being contrary, and has no interest in the facts.
Adobe makes fine software, sophisticated one at that. Apple applications tend to be basic/rudimentary; look at iCal and Mail client.
EXPRESS hasn't been updated in years and Windows doesn't even
come with an iCal compatible application. Mac's Mail and iCal apps
are completely usable and I haven't need to use anything but them.
>
>Apple applications tend to be basic/rudimentary;
>look at iCal and Mail client
What are you smoking? Have you not heard of Final Cut Pro? Logic Pro? Motion? Next time I'd advise you check your facts before spouting off. It's annoying, and annoying is now illegal:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=fd_carsl" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=fd_carsl</a>
;-)
pagemaker but no other Adobe product? Man, oh man you need to
get off your high horse and start using InDesign and the rest of
CS2. Maybe then you won't be so uptight because your work life
will much easier. And from my point of view, it's better that Adobe
is creating this rather than Microsoft.
Every software company needs competition -- even Apple.
extraneous functions getting in the way. That's a concept lost to
Adobe in general, and to In-Design in particular. You don't need
a howitzer to go mouse hunting, unless you're a lousy shot.
And Adobe made it quite clear in emails to me that the Adobe
products were designed for the serious professional, not for the
casual use by a consumer. So, if I wasn't ready to run the Adobe
learning curve, I should use something else. That's about the
only right thing Adobe has come up with.